What I find so hilarious about these rumors are that someone like UNC and Duke get this "most favored" status, and are so closely tied to these other target schools, like GT, who are portrayed to be so pissed. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can put together that UNC and Duke get pretty much everything they want...so why would that make them buddies with the likes of UMD, who felt compelled to leave because of years of neglect and other differences, and GT, who has someone in their AD pretty much say it's not fair.

Even if GT left today for the B1G, it would be to get AWAY from UNC and Duke's influence...it's not to lure those two to follow them.

But I think this is the kind of thing GT will keep in their pocket and approach with FSU, Clemson, and VT when it comes time to approach ACC brass about distribution of weekday games and other scheduling considerations. I do agree it's not the ACC's fault GT and BYU fell when it fell, but among the other "issues," it seems a tad insensitive.

That NC-4 favortism in the ACC has had a long history to it. It helped cause SC to leave decades ago with the independent try that did not work out well. Fortunately they got rescued when the SEC expanded around '90.

It really had been bad for some in the ACC. So many complaints abound about bb refs in the 60s', 70s', and beyond. NC interests controlled tournament and playoff sites across the spectrum. The ACC was so against expansion years ago due to the fear that adding more schools would dilute the power in NC.I've long thought that at least one of the NC schools, probably NC State, should have been in another compatible conference.

FSU, Clemson, GT, Maryland, even Virginia before, have been known to complain, even recently. With expansion the time before last, even WFU and NC State had disagreed with UNC and Duke. Indeed, if there will be new extractions, schools outside the NC-focused core, would be the most susceptible to leaving.

The fake classes, grade alterations, institutionalized plagarism, and the bogus major at UNC, would be shocking if it came from anywhere else. Couple that with Miami's long troubling antics, the conference needs examination deeper within, and they can't do that well without balanced scrutiny.

If the ACC does not transition to improved internal workings, they will not be stable in this money-driven age. In earlier times, Duke and UNC would be content to see the big complainers leave and replace them with some that may be more obedient, but they also know each quality departure diminishes their own worth, sense of security, and revenue status for the conference as a whole.

If the ACC does not transition to improved internal workings, they will not be stable in this money-driven age. In earlier times, Duke and UNC would be content to see the big complainers leave and replace them with some that may be more obedient, but they also know each quality departure diminishes their own worth, sense of security, and revenue status for the conference as a whole.

Amen to that last bit. If the ACC really believes what ESPN is saying that the swap for UMD and UL didn't really affect the money as they still sit below $20/mil, they are not starting life after UMD very well.

Adding programs that others were all too willing to leave behind is in no way a step in the right direction.

...while the B1G hits financial paydirt with Rutgers. What a world, indeed.

I don't think much of the FSU and GT candidacies for B1G inclusion, but I like them more than the UNC-UVA core ones. If the ACC is going to be "robbed" by the B1G, it's still going to be on the fringes. I still like Pitt and Syracuse if the expansion happens before the start of the new academic year cycle. I don't think they want to leave one conference where their concerns over handling issues with the likes of Notre Dame fell on deaf ears by going into another that pretty much did the same thing. The ACC got that one through without two probable dissenting votes...that's not how one does business cooperatively.

I don't think much of the FSU and GT candidacies for B1G inclusion, but I like them more than the UNC-UVA core ones. If the ACC is going to be "robbed" by the B1G, it's still going to be on the fringes. I still like Pitt and Syracuse if the expansion happens before the start of the new academic year cycle. I don't think they want to leave one conference where their concerns over handling issues with the likes of Notre Dame fell on deaf ears by going into another that pretty much did the same thing. The ACC got that one through without two probable dissenting votes...that's not how one does business cooperatively.

I'm not so sure about Syracuse and Pitt for this next round (evenutally yes) I think the goal is to get eyeballs and markets for the upcoming TV deal, and the biggest "reasonable" (so no Denver/LA/SF/Seattle) untapped markets are New England (BC/UConn), Virginia (UVA), North Carolina (UNC/Duke), Atlanta (GT), Florida (FSU), Missouri (UM), Texas (UT), and of course the eyeball factor of ND and possibly Oklahoma; Pitt/Syracuse are just filler type schools in the realignment world which while valueable are not really slam dunks in expansion...similar to Kansas.

But I do agree with you and have also been thinking about this for awhile now, that if they grabbed FSU/GT to go to 16, then quickly take UVA for 17 while everyone's freaking out and use it as leverage against UNC and ND saying they'll stop at 18 while leaving the ACC in complete disarray.

If 1 joins and the other doesn't then stop at 18 but if both decide to join then obviously they'd take both of them and add another like Duke, Pitt, Syracuse, BC or UConn and go to 20 (honestly I could see them eventually taking all those schools and going to 24).

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

I don't think much of the FSU and GT candidacies for B1G inclusion, but I like them more than the UNC-UVA core ones. If the ACC is going to be "robbed" by the B1G, it's still going to be on the fringes. I still like Pitt and Syracuse if the expansion happens before the start of the new academic year cycle. I don't think they want to leave one conference where their concerns over handling issues with the likes of Notre Dame fell on deaf ears by going into another that pretty much did the same thing. The ACC got that one through without two probable dissenting votes...that's not how one does business cooperatively.

I'm not so sure about Syracuse and Pitt for this next round (evenutally yes) I think the goal is to get eyeballs and markets for the upcoming TV deal, and the biggest "reasonable" (so no Denver/LA/SF/Seattle) untapped markets are New England (BC/UConn), Virginia (UVA), North Carolina (UNC/Duke), Atlanta (GT), Florida (FSU), Missouri (UM), Texas (UT), and of course the eyeball factor of ND and possibly Oklahoma; Pitt/Syracuse are just filler type schools in the realignment world which while valueable are not really slam dunks in expansion...similar to Kansas.

But I do agree with you and have also been thinking about this for awhile now, that if they grabbed FSU/GT to go to 16, then quickly take UVA for 17 while everyone's freaking out and use it as leverage against UNC and ND saying they'll stop at 18 while leaving the ACC in complete disarray.

If 1 joins and the other doesn't then stop at 18 but if both decide to join then obviously they'd take both of them and add another like Duke, Pitt, Syracuse, BC or UConn and go to 20 (honestly I could see them eventually taking all those schools and going to 24).

At some point, this will level off and people will start wondering why the big schools only miles apart from each other don't play anymore, and I don't think, when it comes down to it, these schools have it in them to fight their state and federal governments on those matters, or the NFL if they think they can break from the NCAA and do something "semi-pro." It's not a fight they can win.

There's money in the regional rivalries thing, and at some point, a guy like Delany is going to no longer be the head or mouthpiece to the conference. They're going to see that you can make a lot of money going with schools that keep local revenue and economies going, while capitalizing on regionalized advertising. It's for that reason I'm so certain 15 and 16, if they happen, are two in that KU, MU, Pitt, and 'Cuse cluster. No, they're not big market grabs, or the most prestigious choices, but they make such regional sense because their alumni live mostly amongst Big Ten school alumni.

BC is a tough one. They make a lot of sense on paper, but have not done anything to make their case an obvious one. They voted for the buyout increase, I think they advocated for Notre Dame, and I suspect that Louisville is now an ACC school and not UConn has something to do with appeasing BC. I could see BC sticking a knife into the ACC, like it did to Syracuse, but I think it would make for extremely hard times for that school if they did.

second paragraphMeetings in May in Chicago should produce recommendations for the league’s presidents to consider in June. Several Big Ten athletic directors have said the new divisions for 2014 and beyond — with Maryland and Rutgers in the mix, and perhaps two more schools by then

I have a tough time seeing them going to 16 before the SEC. And they'd be fools if they had UVA in their pockets not to get to the table to renegotiate so they could make even more with schools like that. They're cheating themselves.

I have a tough time seeing them going to 16 before the SEC. And they'd be fools if they had UVA in their pockets not to get to the table to renegotiate so they could make even more with schools like that. They're cheating themselves.

The Big Ten will most likely expand first because their TV deal is up soon, the SEC's deal is next in 2020 (I think) so they may just wait to see what the Big Ten does or if the right combo of schools approaches them. No need to rush...they have a good thing going right now.

By the time all the new additions join the conference, the Big Ten's main TV deal will be up for negotiation. No need to piss of the network exectuives by pushing for a 10-20 million increase for a year or two when you can get a 100 million dollar increase over to next 10-20 years by playing nice and not stepping on toes.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

As far as being able to air the BTN in more markets, there is room for the Big Ten to grow. But the name of the game is to pull in more $$$ PER SCHOOL, and we're reaching the law of diminishing returns here.With each addition, you have to drive the viewership divided by the NEW TOTAL NUMBER OF CONF. MEMBERS up, and that's going to become harder to do indefinitely.

As far as the network TV contracts (I think the Big Ten is in bed with ABC / ESPN / Disney), I believe a conference can get TOO BIG.If we hold total games at 12, each addition of 2 requires an additional intra-division game, and makes the inter-division rotation take that much longer.And as the conferences become sprawling, you lose the feeling of rivlary. (Honestly, who cares about that Nebraska - Rutgers / Maryland - MInnesota game ?)But most importantly, ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU have ONLY SO MANY SLOTS TO FILL EACH SATURDAY ! At some point, that would seem to create a limitation on what they are willing to bid for one of these ever-expanding conferences.

Dealny seems adept at making money, but he may be taking his eye off the ball with regard to "product quality".

Unlike the SEC, the B1G seems to have a lot of school officials speculating and implying in different directions.

On working through the 14 suff & divisions; Slive appears to have told SEC members essentially "air any contentious concerns at official meetings not in the media, we'll have a full vote, and everybody walk out of here being unanimous in supporting the decision".

It's hard to see the B1G aggressively pursuing new ACC additions while the ACC vs Maryland lawsuit is unsettled. But then again, one can point to the ACC expansion around 2003 when certain BE schools were "in", then "out" per the BE lawsuits and the ACC expanded anyway.

MSU apparently wants to be in the "west" division with a permanent cross-over with Michigan and have no conference games beyond 9 at most. There is an agenda, and each school will have their own.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum